Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
with a previous criminal conviction unless they apply and are granted rights restoration by the government. in a column for the nation this week, one of my guests wrote about one of those states, florida. you have heard about florida before. in florida where mixed messages to former felons have left many with misunderstanding about their voting status. brentich brentin mock rights this. br brentin is still here. >> florida is the felony des enfranchisement of the nation. especially african-americans. a quarter are affected by these la laws. many are eligible to vote. they have gone through the process to have their rights restored. it is the state's obligation to notify these people when they get out of jail that now you are able to vote. due to the transient nature of people when they get out of jail, their address changes. so the state has sent out letters to the formerly incarcerated saying, you are eligible to vote. almost 20,000 came back as undeliver believe. >> that confusion alone if you have a former felony conviction, you don't want to go in and present yourself as a voter with t
wednesday will be dominated by the economy, sometimes devoted to health care and the role of governing. the candidates will be ready because over the past month, the rules, scheduling and topics for the debate have been negotiated by the commission on presidential debates. the major party bosses and the campaigns. in fact, this year for the first time in history, the presidential candidates will be given the topics of the debate ahead of time. when i did debate, we called that a cheat sheet. but okay. topics that didn't make the list? plenty. to name a few, the candidates won't be addressing gun control. the national incarceration crisis or wage stagnation. as i stand in this moment, i have my stand-in debaters and i want to know what you guys think ought to be on the debate calendar, on the schedule that's not there? >> i don't think we should be constrained to these narrow topics. if anything, i would prefer to see a freer flow of debates. i want to see romney and obama the man. i want to see them -- you know, i can watch ads that put their platforms forward. i can read their website
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)